1920-03-01

INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I'beg to present a communication from His Excellency the Governor General approving of a Minute of the Privy Council appointing Hon. John Do wsley Reid, Minister of Railways and Canals; Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue; Hon. J. A. iCalder, Minister of Immigration and Colonization; and Rt. Hon.' A. L. Sifton, Secretary of State, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purpose, and under the provisions, of the Eleventh Chapter, Revised Statutes o.f Canada, 1906, entitled "An Act Respecting the House of Commons."



REPORTS AND PAPERS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of Steamboat Inspection; Annual Report of Department of Marine and Fisheries; Annual Report of the Department of Naval Service; Annual Report of the Fisheries Branch; Order in Council authorizing the payment of Command money to the officials of the dockyard service; Amendments to Radial Telegraph Regulations-Hon. C. C. Ballantyne.
Czeeho-Slov-ak Minorities Treaty:	Serb-
Croat-Slovene Minorities Treaty; Arms
[Stage Direction]
Traffic Convention; Liquor Traffic Convention; Berlin and Brussels Acts Convention- Hon. Newton W. Rowell.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President *of the Privy Council) moved that 350 copies in English and 150 copies in French of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria signed on 27th November, 1919, and laid on the table of the House on 26th February, 1920, be printed forthwith and that the provisions of rule 74 in relation thereto be waived.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion, of course, can only be entertained by unanimous consent of the House.
The House, gave unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. Sir George E. Foster the name of Mr. L. J. Papineau was placed on the Committee to nominate the Select Standing Committees of the House in substitution for that of Mr. King.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to Amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to transfer to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the powers heretofore vested in the Commissioner of Dominion Police.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain, please.


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that last year a Bill was passed making provision for the amalgamation of the Dominion Police with the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, which amalgamation has now been carried into effect. Under the Ticket of Leave Act, however, certain special duties and powers are assigned to the Dominion Police, and the first section of this Bill is to transfer to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police those duties and powers, the office oif Commissioner of Dominion Police being no longer in existence. The object of the other portion of the Bill is to make a slight change in the pension provisions contained in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act of last year.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS.

[Stage Direction]
THE LATE DAVID MARSHALL; THE LATE LOUIS AUDET LAPOINTE.
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the Orders of the Day, 1 have a sad duty to discharge, that is, to refer to the vacancies caused by the death since last session of two of our members. Mr. Marshall, who was elected for the East Elgin division in 1906 at a bye-election, and re-elected at the general elections thereafter, has been suddenly called away, and we have on this side of the House a vacant place formerly occupied by a very much beloved friend and loyal supporter, not only of the old Liberal-Conservative Government in its time but also of the Union Government since its formation. Mr. Marshall never took a very prominent part in the discussions of the House. He was a man of Stirling character and of excellent business ability, and he made his way with his fellow members by the possession and exercise of those qualities. 1 am sure that my fellow members on both sides of the House will join with me in deploring his decease and in sending to his family our sincere regrets and condolences.
Another member has also been taken by death since the last session of Parliament, the representative of the St. James division of Montreal (Mr. L. A. Lapointe), a man with whom I had a less intimate acquaintance, but who in his day and generation- he was not an old man when called away -served well his native city in many positions of responsibility and trust.
These two gentlemen have both gone from us. Yesterday they were here; to-day they are not. These occurrences may well make us think of the valuations that we put upon life and its purposes. Realities and vanities make up most of this life of ours, and as we grow older I think we come to the conclusion, especially when face to face with these occurrences, that the vanities are far more regarded than the realities, and that we pursue many of the former when we should be devoting our lives to the pursuit of the latter.
May these occurrences be to all of us a warning and a lesson that life is short, that its duties are great and that its responsibilities are heavy, and that it becomes us, more especially as representatives of the people, to play well our part as we pass across this short stage on our march through the eternities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I add

my tribute to what the Acting Prime Minister has said respecting the memory of our two deceased colleagues. They belonged to different provinces and they represented different parties in this House, but both were alike in this regard, that much of their life was given to public service. It is gratifying to recall that in the case of these late members we had an example of appreciation of public duty such as is given only by those who are willing to incur the responsibilities and obligations of public life.
Mr. Lapointe, who was on this side of the House for a period of something like ten years, gave a great deal of his time not only to the service of his country in Parliament, but also to the service of the municipal affairs of his city. For sixteen years he was a dominating personality in the Council of Montreal. He was chairman for ten years of the Finance Committee. At one time he was a candidate for the mayoralty. During the whole period of his municipal career the financial affairs of the city were conducted with a degree of efficiency and regard for public integrity such as satisfied the most exacting citizens.
Mr. Marshall, who sat on the other side of the House, was known to us, as my right hon. friend has said, not merely as a faithful, efficient and industrious public servant, but also as one of those who have done much to build up the most important of our industries. I am sure that we all join together in conveying to the relatives and friends of our late colleagues the deep sympathy which this House feels at their sudden and unexpected demise.



BOARD OF COMMERCE-RESIGNATION OF JUDGE ROBSON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. leader of the Government if it is the intention to give to the House a statement as to resignation of Judge Robson from the Board of Commerce, and if so, when?


Right Hon.   S@: The papers will be brought down in due time.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY ACQUISITION -THE AGREEMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I observe from the press that the Grand Trunk Railway shareholders have approved the agreement entered into between the Government and that company. I would like to ask my hon. friend, the leader of the Government, if it is his intention to bring down immediately a copy of the agreement?


Right Hon.   S@: Yes, it is the intention.



LORD JELLIOOE'S VISIT TO OTTAWA.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) if he has any statement to give to the House or if there is any official statement forthcoming with reference to the recent visit to Ottawa of Lord Jellicoe and his staff. By whose invitation was it that Lord Jelli-ooe came here? Has he made a report to the Government, and if so, will the House be put into possession of that report alt an early date?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I think I may answer my hon. friend's questions in the affirmative.



VACANCY IN EAST ELGIN.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Writs have been issued for the holding of bye-elections in three constituencies. There is also a vacancy in the electoral district of East Elgin. Is it the intention of the Government to issue immediately a writ of election for the filling of that vacancy?


George Green Foster: The Government will issue a writ in due conformity with the requirements of the statute. As 'to obtaining any further information, I am afraid that my hon. friend will have to ad*-journ his curiosity.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) moved:: That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, offering the humble thanks of this House to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament.
He said: The announcement in the public press that the duty and honour of moving the reply to the speech from the Throne had been conferred upon me was my first intimation on the subject, and came as a complete surprise. When, a few' days later,

above category, and we must for some years to come make shift to use such fixed plant as we now possess.
Members of Parliament and their constituents should alike refrain from pressing upon the Government their claims,-long delayed though these may be, necessary as they may appear to local interests-until this country is in a sounder financial condition. Deflation of our swollen credits is a more vital matter than magnificent public edifices or memorials, nor can there be any speedier means found whereby the mounting cost of the necessities of life may be reduced.
Outside of these larger enterprises which for the most part would be charged to our capital account, every effort should be made to lessen the drain upon the ordinary revenue. Let us agree that our public service is not overpaid. I imagine the public service will take that as a very conservative statement. It has of late become obvious that our experts can obtain higher salaries than the Dominion awards-there remains, however, more than a suspicion that certain departments are overmanned and that in many directions there is a duplication of effort which costs the country dearly.
So much for the unpleasant subject of economy, what of the positive side-that of Production. The first function of Government under the direction of Parliament is to see that a sufficient amount is raised by taxation to meet the country's annual expenditure. From the comments of the platform and press it is apparent the methods whereby this end can Ire accomplished will be the subject of much debate and profound difference. Daring as I may be, I do not propose to anticipate that event; suffice it to say that on those who propose radical changes in our customary methods of taxation the burden falls of proving there are other more equitable and equally efficient modes of raising the amount required. So far as my observation has gone, I have failed to discover in any or all of the alternative plans proposed sources of revenue which would suffice to produce anything like the total needed.	.
In a question like this, as in all matters of business, what is required for clear judgment is above all an accurate knowledge of the facts. While doubtless other hon. members, more able and experienced than I, have at their disposal this essential-yet such is my misfortune or density, I have never been able to find it clearly set forth. It would be to me a profound satisfaction if the Bill (introduced into this House some nine years ago and dropped because of dis-

agreement between the Commons and Senate) providing for the appointment of a permanent tariff commission-were this Session revived and eventually put into force.
It is not often I venture to advance my opinion against that of the former Minister of Finance, but his suggestion made two sessions ago, that certain members of the Government should make personal inquiry on this matter throughout the country, struck me as an inadequate substitute for a body of experts who would study the question year in and year out, collate the facts, and thus permit Parliament to frame a system of taxation on something like a scientific basis.
But, after all, Mr. Speaker, it is but a play on words to denominate taxation as production. There are other measures more truly within that category, whereby the Federal Government can actively aid this essential factor in Canada's welfare. May I be permitted to mention but two of these? The first is the encouragement of suitable immigration to these shores. Nothing within the power of the Government to do can contribute more largely to our progress than an energetic campaign to this end. I would restrict the newcomers to that class who prefer to settle on and cultivate the soil-who are apt to be assimilated, who desire to become permanent citizens, and who will adopt for their own guidance the ideals of justice and freedom which have created for the British Empire its outstanding position in the world. The reputation of Canada and the widespread knowledge of her resources are such that even within the limited class above mentioned, I am confident that tens of thousands of the well-disposed citizens of other countries will be glad to join their fortunes to-ours.
The second measure which appeals to me as of paramount value is a generous meed' of assistance towards scientific research. Nearly a year ago I endeavoured to impress, on the House the importance and urgency of this question. It would be unfair to repeat what was said on that occasion. I was disappointed when through the last, session the Government made no move in advance. Each month's delay handicaps us in the race with rival nations, and under the seal of ignorance keeps hidden stores of treasure which might otherwise be at our disposal. How much would not Canada have lost if the scientific knowledge and patience of Dr. Saunders, the discoverer of Marquis wheat, had not been utilized by the Department of Agriculture?

On this one item alone our Western farmers are in pocket many millions; and throughout the length and breadth of this scientifically unexplored land there are many equally golden opportunities awaiting discovery! I venture, therefore, to appeal once more for immediate consideration and broad-minded action on what will be a positive aid to greater production.
Mr. Speaker, my two-word text has been, perhaps, unduly expanded, but the subject can be compressed into the following guiding principles, which will not tax the memory unduly:-
(1)	Rigid economy;
(2)	Cessation or minimization of Government borrowing;
(3)	Adequate taxation on a scientific and equitable basis;
(4)	An energetic and discriminating immigration campaign, and
(5)	National scientific research.
In addition to these primary subjects which, by reason of our present position, insistently demand our best thought, there are other substantial legislative problems to be brought to our attention. A new Franchise Bill will be submitted and dealt with. This opens up the general question of representation and representative government, and I trust may lead to the serious consideration by a select committee of what is commonly termed Proportional Representation. The philosopher of the House has declared that humanity is on trial to-day, but humanity in this condition, having condemned representative government for all the ills of the hour, is more than ready to heave half a brick through its polished and highly respectable plate glass. Were it not well, then, to ascertain and remedy the obvious defects of a system which leaves large and important sections of opinion unrepresented by permitting local and artificial boundaries rather than the people themselves to determine an election? The threat or boast of a Provincial Premier that the next Federal Parliament shall contain not a single old member holds no terrors for me, knowing (and per-qjiance happy in that knowledge), that " the Clerk of our delight shall hereafter rising look through this same bear garden after me in vain." But, Sir, whatever the Fates may have in store for us-and I use the plural advisedly because as the ancients pictured the Parcae as feminine in gender, so must we in modem political life recognize the metamorphosis wrought by the enfranchisement of women. A change perhaps not as striking as may prevail in Great
Britain, but yet great enough to permit the ladies to wield the abhorent shears on the tenuous thread by which we are suspended [DOT]-whatever, I repeat, these dear Fates have in store, we should, if not as members, at least in our capacity of citizens and voters, believers in the spirit of pure democracy, insist that an equal share of representation be given to each separate elector, instead of its exclusive possession being entrusted to any one class.
As a corollary to fair representation, we should be concerned with the machinery of Government. We should insist that the antiquated and obsolete plant which when in charge of either party creaked and groaned under a pre-war burden, and which, in times of war stress, frequently went out of gear, be relegated to the scrap heap in favour of a more efficient motor. The recent report of a committee of the Senate revives the significant statement of Sir George Murray that our " Ministers of the Crown "-those servants of the people who, in proportion to their responsibility, labour and necessary expenditure, are so fantastically underpaid-" have both too* much to do and do too much." That Canada is not alone in this predicament can be gathered from the synopses of various like reports made to the British House of Commons. After leading these one is not surprised at the suggestion made a year or two ago that the greatest need of the English Government was a department of thinking. Shall I be deemed impertinent if I hint that an echo of this suggestion has been heard on our side of the Atlantic? If a reform of our system were to include an improved method for the submission and consideration of Government Estimates we would take a great step forward toward the intelligent control of the country's finances.
The Select Committee on Re-establishment, which did such strenuous and conscientious work at the last session, should resume its inquiries into the position of the returned soldier. There should be added to its duties an investigation into the working of the Pension Act. Let us not delude ourselves with the idea that the problem of the soldier can at any period be deemed static: in its very nature, which is human to the core, new phases, fresh consideration, further demands, reasonable and unreasonable, will arise. It is the part of wisdom that members of this House and the public should be kept in close touch with the entire situation, rather than it should be left in the hands of a depart-

ment, no matter how fair minded or antibureaucratic its officers may be.
For much the same reason just mentioned a second Industrial Conference should be convened. Time and effort are never ill spent in an honest endeavour to readjust the industrial situation for the permanent benefit of all parties. The example set by the enlarged Whitley program in England and by the American plan as detailed in Leitch's most interesting book " Man to Man " show what may be accomplished by the democratization of industry. It is freely prophecied that before long Labour will be hiring Capital rather than Capital hiring Labour. Would it not be well for both of these interests to realize what this reversal of existing practices may entail?
The prominent part assumed by Canada in the settlement of the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty, and the fact that she is now a member of the governing body of the International Labour Organization, make it incumbent that we should keep abreast of this great movement. It is of interest to note that of the twelve members forming that body eight are the appointees of the Council of the League and but four were chosen by the votes of the remaining nations. Once again the renown won by our men in the field secured to us the distinction of selection from amongst a score or more of rival candidates.
Here endeth, Mr. Speaker, my review of those material questions which I should like this Parliament to consider, and on that side of the shield, while the situation is not free from peril, there is no need for pessimism. We are incomparably better off than our European Allies; we have at our disposal the resources of a vast and richly endowed land, and we are wont to believe ourselves a virile, sane and industrious nation. Granted that these adjectives can be truthfully applied, there is nought before us to cause undue anxiety. As the Scot has it: let us " Set a stoot hairt to a stey brae." Shall we be the less happy if, for a few years, "We scorn delights and live laborious days?" I trow not, provided our hearts are stout and our minds retain their sanity. But therein lies the trouble: we are all more or less abnormal; just as the war has affected our financial status, so has it upset our nervous system and modes of thought.
During the war Canadians were united by a common danger and a firm purpose: these artificial stimulants, with other intoxicants of more noxious but not less exciting nature, have been withdrawn. There
[Mr. Cronyn.3
appears to be some danger of disintegration. Not only has the old-time class warfare revived, but new classes and groups have arisen and are vociferously demanding the overturn of established order.
Canada, too, has unfortunately become the refuge for many from the old lands who bring with them as their household gods the inherited grievances of European autocracy. They "still nourish in their bewildered brain that wild, unquenched, deep-sunken, old world pain." But, that they should be permitted to become leaders of any considerable body of citizens, to so poison the minds of their followers as to kill healthy or kindly thought, is a matter for deepest anxiety. Unless we regain our mental poise, there can be little hope of recovery in the body politic and much reason to fear disruption.
The history of the early days of peace following every bitter war shows the existence of similar conditions; and as this war was the greatest and most terrible ever waged, so are the reaction and disturbance more pronounced. The dogs of war, it is true, are in leash, but "those lesser breeds without (the law" are still in full cry, and "havoc" is their note. No nation, race or belief is secure from their attack. The more prominent the individual, the more untiring his effort, the more unselfish his aims, .the greater his sacrifices, the keener are the progeny of Cerberus to pull him down, to worry him into retirement or death. The man hunt is on! Denunciation and Defamation, Slander and Scandal are the leading couples in the hellish pack!
But, Sir, you may object these are not matters to be cured 'by legislative enactment. I quite agree. The doctrine that man's moral nature can be moulded by statute is as musty as are (the blue laws of Connecticut. What can this House do to remedy so grave an evil, an evil which legislation is admittedly helpless to cure? I believe much can be done by the mere force of example.
We meet to-day dm a new building, erected by modem methods, yet irnbue^ Wiith the beauty and stateliness of the past -a gathering place typical at every turn of Canadian life, yet one dun which any Parliament of the world might be glad to convene. May iwe not be persuaded to believe that those fierce flames, which found so much suitable material to feed their frenzy, destroyed not merely lam antiquated and hazardous structure, but as well utterly consumed the equally inflammable

and more dangerous vestments-veritable fabrics of Ness us-woven of ancient party strife.
I pray you, Sir, to believe I do not arrogate to myself the unenviable post of judge or mentor, nor is this a curate's plea for "sweetness and light." We have had, and must in the future retain, honest differences of opinion; our [DOT]judgment on questions of the weightiest import will be widely divergent, and forceful words will be used by forceful men. But let us no.t fall into the mortal error of mistaking feeling for thought, or of substituting mere passion for argument.
1	am confident I speak for many, perhaps for a majority of members on both sides, when I say we have in the past been forced to listen with grave repugnance to attacks made both within and without this House; attempts to stir up racial and religious feeling, to divide or segregate one section of the community or country from the remainder, to malign or belittle those high in the service of the nation; attacks which utterly failed to accomplish the nominal object of the aggressor; nay, rather served to undermine the very cause he purported to uphold. Do not let us forget, however far apart we may stand on questions of policy, we have at ieast one common cause for unity in that we are all Canadians.
For the Parliament of Canada can never represent the East as distinguished from the West, the English speaking peoples apart from those who love the French tongue, Capital rather than Labour, the city in preference to the country, or the civilian before the soldier. This Parliament should, and I believe does, represent the whole of Canada; a country of which we have every reason to. be proud, but one in which, because of its physiographical position, its diversities of language, religion and interests, there is a greater need for the strongest unifying influence.
In searching for an apt statement on this head I applied to my broad-minded and good naitured friend, Who formerly represented Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), but who is now to be congratulated on his election to the seat .so long held by his distinguished leader. He drew my attention to the sentiment of the talented author of "L'Esprit des lois" or, as some Englishmen prefer to call if. "The Spirit of Nations," when be uttered this phrase: -"La .societe eslt l'union des homines, et non pas les hommes." So in very truth this country of ours is and will only remain a Dominion by virtue of the unity of its citizens and not through the mere existence of the citizens themselves.
Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to travel over the greater portion of this broad land, and thus to learn, from such personal observation as my faculties .permit, something of its attractions and resources. It does not, therefore, astonish me when conversing with my fellow members, whether they hail .from Prince Edward Island on the east, British Columbia on *the west, or from one of the .seven sister provinces lying between, that each and every one is ready, in describing hi.s home territory, to employ the sentiment-if not the graceful words of the classical poet- "Ille terrarum mihi praeter omnes angulus ridet."


An hon. MEMBER:: Translate.


Hume Cronyn: An bon. member demands a translation. Theire are many happy ones, but I prefer to adopt that of the westerner who, when speaking of his own smiling corner of the Dominion, says in words more blunt-but none the less convincing, "It sure is a bit of God's own .country."
It has also formed .a part of my life to pay many visits to Great Britain, and while on business bent my mind was ever open to the beauties-I need scarcely say, Sir, I refer solely to inanimate nature- .the beauties of the Old Land, whether these were !to be found in the mystic atmosphere of the "distresshful" island, in the wealth of colouring of peace-time England, or in the more rugged outlines north of the Tweed. I .snatched at each rare opportunity to enjoy the pleasures offered by art, or that more elusive charm of a civilization mellowed by age; not too happily defined by the word "culture."
But on each and every occasion when the home-bound liner neared these shores, I found myself offering a fervent welcome to my native land. Nor was this worship evoked by the sight of the shining flood of the mighty St. Lawrence, or of those Northern hills upon whose purple peaks the deeper shades descended; it was not the memory of the thunders of Niagara transmuted and transmitted for the service and light of ten thousand happy homes, of our vast Mediterraneans bearing the argosies of a continent's commerce, of the unchecked horizon of our fertile prairies here showing the velvety blackness of their fallow soil, there miles of waving grain, richer than the tracery of any goldsmith's cunning; nor yet the intimate friendliness of those fruitful valleys bathed by the soft airs of the Paci-



fic. It arose from a cause deeper even than these eternal glories, from a profound belief that in this country we draw more freely and fully the breath of life, that we have escaped (and thanks to rhe effort of the former member from Kingston, seem destined yet to escape) that taint of caste which to the outsider seems to permeate and render unhealthy so much of the old world; that in Canada we recognise as the truest aristocracy that of character-I would one could declare it to be the sole aristocracy to which we bow, but the gross bulk of the plutocrat obtrudes-that here there is given to every man an opportunity to de-velope those powers with which the Creator may have endowed him, and that as we gaze into the sky of our future we find it glowing with the promise of a glorious day.
That belief of mine, is my excuse, if excuse be needed, for making an appeal to my fellow countrymen to unitedly stand guard over this splendid heritage. Let us prove ourselves worthy, not merely of these stately buildings and all they symbolize, not only of our sires the benefit of whose arduous labours we now enjoy but worthy even, if that be possible, of those brave souls
"Who ventured life and love and youth
For the great prize of death in battle."
Too long have I, Mr. Speaker, presumed upon the patience of this House where words are our only currency and where, following universal law, an unlimited issue causes a corresponding decline in value. I would- however soon these worthless tokens of mine may disappear from the market of its memory-leave with it one message as a guide in the days to come; a message given literally from the deathbed of an outstanding Englishman, for he died a few days after its utterance, one who was a former Governor-General of this Dominion, and for whom might fittingly have been selected that joyous epitaph-"Glad did I live and gladly die and I lay me down with a will."
I am (perhaps too acutely) conscious that the simple and artless words used by the late Earl Grey will cause the cynic and worldly-wise-"those least erected spirits" -to scoff at them as better fitted for the pulpit or nursery, hut I am among those who believe that the same ideals which govern our private lives should as well he the fixed stars to guide us in the rougher seas of politics, or, as Lowell has it "the real will never find an irremovable basis till it rests on the ideal." Here is the message; may it be graven on the hearts of all true citizens:-

"We've got to give up quarrelling. We've got to come together.
We've got to realize that we are all members of the same family.
There's nothing that can help humanity, I'm perfectly sure there isn't, perfectly sure, except love ! Love is the way out and the way up. That's my farewell to the world."


Mr. ALEXANDER McGREGOR (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker I have the unexpected honour of seconding the motion so eloquently spoken to by the honourable member for London (Mr. Cronyn). As honourable members of this House know, I am not ambitious to be classed among the speech makers, and having but a short experience in parliamentary life, I feel that I should crave the indulgence of my brother members while I endeavour to discharge the duty that is laid upon me.
I wish to say that I regard the honour as being intended more for the important constituency which I represent than for myself, in that sense I accept it, and on behalf of my constituents express sincere appreciation. It is a high compliment to them that I should be privileged at this the first session in our reconstructed, commodious, and beautiful chamber, to second the Address.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that every honourable member of this House sincerely deplores the absence of the Prime Minister, and also sincerely hopes that ere long he will be restored to his accustomed vigour. Men come, and men go in Parliament, as they do in other walks of life. (Some leave light, some indelible impress of individuality and power. Sir Robert Borden is recognized as one of the really great men of Canada. He has been an outstanding figure in our wide flung Empire, a statesman of the highest rank in the world's estimation.
Naturally, some have differed with him on political questions, but no one ever challenged his honour, his profound sagacity, his political devotion, or his powerful influence. The enormous responsibilities of the past five years have evidently shaken his vigorous constitution, and to-day, he may well he regarded as a casualty of the great war.
The honourable member for London has so completely dealt with the legislation proposed in the speech from the Throne that little remains to which I might refer. He has gone very fully into the financial situation, and the successful financing of our war loans, which during the war, has meant so much to our agricultural, and industrial prosperity.

Our success in financing the war within ourselves, was, I believe, a revelation to the people of this country. It demonstrated the fact that Canada was in the fight to the finish, and not only so, but one year after the signing of the armistice, the men and women of Canada again came forward with their money largely in excess of the amount requested by the Minister of Finance.
I think one would be justified in coming to the conclusion that the people of Canada have faith in the men who are guiding the destinies of the country in the most critical period of our histoiy.
When Union Government was formed one of the promises made, was that returned soldiers would be given the preference of Government positions. In looking ovei the official records, I find that 338,137 officers and men have been demobilized. Of this number 23,532 men have been placed in positions in the different departments of the Government services, as follows:
Agricultural Department	 269
Air Board	 8
Auditor General's Department ....	9
Food Board	 18
Civil Service Commission	 13
Commission of Conservation	 20
Customs and Inland Revenue		959
External Affairs	 30
Finance	 37
Governor General's Secretaries....	2
House of Commons	 10
Health	  5
Indian Affairs	 136
Immigration and Colonization	 112
Interior	 1,544
Insurance	 1
Justice	 637
Labour	 76
Marine	 158
Militia and Defence	 2,408
Mines	 90
Naval Service	 757
Post Office	 5,691
Printing and Stationery	 158
Privy Council	 16
Public Works	 1,122
Railways and Canals	 588
Secretary of State	 22
Senate	 12
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and
Pensions	 7,364
Soldiers' Settlement Board	 1,107
Trade and Commerce	 144
War Purchasing Commission	 10
Since these figures were compiled 2,000 additional appointments of returned soldiers have been made or a grand total of 25,532.
In addition to this the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment have placed over 129,000 men in various positions outside of the Government services.
At the end of the year 12,327 men were receiving training in schools operated by the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment, and at the same time 11,223 men were
receiving training in industries throughout the country.
In the Land Settlement Department 44,278 men have made applications for farms, of which 33,496 have qualified.
$55,000,000 has been advanced by the Government for the purchase of farms and equipment, for those who have settled on the land,
$125,000,000 has been paid out in gratuities to the returned man, and, $40,000,000 has been appropriated to assist the unemployed soldiers during the winter months of the present year.
Up to December 31 pensions paid to returned soldiers and dependents total over $41,000,000.
So I think it can well be claimed that the Government are carrying out their pre-election promises to the returned men.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no member in this House, who is not disposed to grant all reasonable assistance to the returned soldiers; the extent of our desire to assist is limited only by the ability of the country to pay. I do not hesitate to say that in my humble opinion, in view of out enormous financial obligations. Canada has been generous toward the returned men, and I believe a large majority of the returned men realize the situation and appreciate the fact that a grateful country has done what it could do to assist them. Personally, I do not take second place to any in my appreciation of our gallant forces and a desire to assist those who require assistance, but I have little regard for those who at the present time are endeavouring to exploit the problems of the returned men.
As the world is groping its way out of the horrors that engulfed it during the eventful years of the great war, many are depressed because the thing we call re-construction does not spring up in a night. There are some who appear to entertain the vain expectation that the countries which were scourged by the scorpions of war, and are heavily burdened with its indescribable consequences, ought to quickly emerge, and, as it were by magic, re-establish themselves in normal conditions. There are others, and these are not few in numbers who imagine themselves to be heaven bom reformers, reconstructionists and prophets endowed with unfailing knowledge, of sure cure, and cure-all panaceas, that are warranted to immediately restore the world's social, industrial, commercial, and financial equilibrium, and make every man, woman, and child contented and happy.
I venture to think, Sir, that what we need to-day in this country, in common with

unemployed in proportion to her population than any of the allied countries.
In looking over the trade returns I find that during the past year we imported steel and iron to the value of $154,021,858. This one item accounts for over fifty per cent of the adverse balance of trade between Canada and the United (States.
Mr. Speaker, I have often thought what might have happened if our neighbours to the south (were unfriendly neutrals during the years they remained out of the war. What if they had refused to sell us steel? What if they had refused to sell steel and steel products to the Mother Country? Serious as the situation was, it might have been more serious.
In view of the many lessons which we have learned as a result of the war, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of this country will do well to further encourage the development of the iron and steel industry, which has meant so much to the industrial prosperity of Canada in the past, but more especially during the period of the great war.
Perhaps some of us forget the great financial obligations which have been thrust upon us as a result of the war. When we entered the war our national debt was $335,000,000; to-day it is nearly $2,000,000,000. The interest on our national debt at the outbreak of the war was about $15,000,000; to-day it is over $115,000,000. In addition to this we have a yearly Pension Bill of $25,000,000, or possibly $30,000,000.
As our financial obligations have increased, in like proportion our industry and efforts must increase, if we are to meet our obligations and overtake the world-wide shortage of all the necessaries of life. For five years 50,000,000 men have been fighting, and 100,000,000 men turned their attention from their ordinary pursuits in life to the furnishing of munitions and the necessary supplies that enabled our forces to carry on at the front.
In the years that lie before us, capital must be content with fair profits; labour must be paid a fair living wage. If our industrial life is interrupted by strikes the situation will become more difficult. To accomplish the task, labour and capital must co-operate.
During the last session of Parliament an industrial conference was held at Ottawa, representatives of labour gathering together in conference with representatives of capital from, I think, nearly every province of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I believe this was a move in the right direction;
[Mr. McGregor.l
it will, no doubt, result in the bringing about of better conditions and a better understanding of the difficulties of both labour and capital. Not only should labour and capital work in harmony, but every province of this great Dominion should carefully consider the problems of the other provinces. The interests of the East should not be overlooked by the West, and in like manner the interests of the West should, and I believe will be considered by the people of the East.
In the past all classes in this great country worked side by side in harmony. There was little, if any, friction. I think it was well understood that when the farmer was prosperous the manufacturer was prosperous, and when the manufacturer was prosperous, labour was content. We can only prosper as a well balanced organization, for we are each dependent on the success of the other.
Our policy must be national, not selfish or sectional. I think it will be admitted by all fair-minded men that those who have legislated for us in the past, regardless of party, were not class legislators.
I believe the men who were entrusted with our political destinies in the past were honest men who did their best having regard to the interests of every portion of this great Dominion.
As a result of the war we have a share of the world-wide unrest which in other countries threatens to destroy the very foundations of civilization, but in that respect we have little to complain of in Canada. It is true we have those who advocate class legislation, and those who would set up one class against another. Such can end only in disaster, and those who advocate such a course are not the true friends of the soldier, of the farmer, of labour, or of the manufacturer. The platform or the policy of any class that is not national and equitable to all, regardless of class, race or religion, should not be considered, and, I believe, will not be considered by the intelligent men and women of this country.
While much has been said of our great natural resources, which I do not wish to minimize, at the same time, I believe the greatest endowment of any country is that of a united, happy, and contented people. The bulwark of a nation is not its army or its navy, but the character of its citizens. We are now clothed with the authority and obligations of a nation; let us as true Canadians demonstrate to the world that we are worthy of that great responsibility. We must not forget that the name of Canada is written large on the map of the world

by the supreme sacrifice made by nearly 60,000 of our brave eons. The responsibility is with us to maintain it.
Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in seconding the motion for an Address in reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it is
appropriate that the opening paragraph of the speech from the Throne, as well as the burden of the remarks of the hon. members who have just spoken, should have reference in large part to the assembling of this Parliament in its new home. It would be strange, indeed, if, under the spell of the noble and dignified proportions of this chamber, we were not all impressed with the spirit of the Canadian people in rising out of the difficulties of the past and impressed with the future greatness of our country, if we are but willing to put our hands to the task and make the future all that it lies within the possibilities of our people to make it.
It is no mere formality, Sir, to have the privilege at this time of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address on the excellence of their speeches.	I
am sure that all of us who have heard them believe they have made the most of the occasion and of the opportunity afforded to them. If there has been any limitation in the nature of their remarks, that nas heen due, one must say, to the meagreness of the legislative programme which the	Government	has presented	in
the words which it has put into the lips of His Excellency in the Speech from the Throne. Listening to the hon. gentlemen, I could not help remarking how each of them seemed to regard himself as a prop beneath a crumbling edifice. They made a reference or two to some features of the Speech from the Throne, but for the most part they took care to " get out from under " it altogether. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McGregor) went entirely into the past; he confined his remarks to giving the House very interesting and valuable statistics on matters of trade, on matters of manufacture, on assistance to the returned soldiers, on munition output, on trade with the United States and trade with the Mother country. He took caie, as I have said, to confine his remarks almost exclusively to the past and to give the House a mass of statistics for which I am sure we shall all be very grateful.
On the other hand, the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), who moved the Address in such eloquent, witty and poetic language, went to the other extreme, confining his remarks for the most part to the future, in a constructive and helpful way telling the Government wherein he thought they had been remiss in excluding from the Address practically everything in the nature of constructive legislation. I am sure we on this side of the House will all congratulate my hon. friend that he has been the first to draw the attention of the Government to . this omission which will be noticed throughout the country, and, though doubtless not so intended, the remarks of both hon. gentlemen on the Address are a reflection upon the Government in what they have put into the speech of His Excellency to present to this Parliament at this time.
If one examines the speech from the Throne, one cannot help being struck at the outset with the fact that Hlis Excellency's advisers appear to be infinitely more concerned with external affairs than with the business of this country. Omitting the opening section to which I have just referred, let us take the other paragraphs in the speech from the Throne and see what they include. First, there is a reference to the League of Nations, to commissions and mandatories. Then there are references to the Treaty with Bulgaria and to other possible treaties with Hungary and Turkey. The next is a reference to a conference in Washington, and next a reference to the confusion and uncertainty arising out of conditions affecting the League of Nations. There is a passing reference to Soldiers' Civil Be-establishment, and then comes another reference to the European economic field. The next section deals with confusion and dislocation again, and then we come to the International Opium Convention, and finally we are reduced to two tiny concluding paragraphs which contain all in the way of constructive legislation which the Government has to offer to the country at this time.
I could not but be struck the other day, with the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), being the first to present a document to this Parliament, and at his laying upon the table of the House a copy of the Treaty between the Allied and Associated Governments and Bulgaria. We are all interested in Bulgaria, but I could not help thinking that it would have been more in accord with the wishes of the Canadian people if the first document to be presented to this Parliament had been for the pur-

pose of ratifying and approving the agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government of this country, instead of one of ratification and approval of this particular treaty.
The Government thought well to give to the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in England the right to approve an agreement of the terms of which the members of this House, with the exception of the ministry, have no knowledge even at this time. Sir, I submit that the people of Canada are concerned primarily with their own affairs and are entitled to have placed before their representatives in Parliament at the earliest possible moment documents of so vast importance as the one to which I have just referred.
But, Sir, there is a further limitation in the speech from the Throne which serves to reflect the mind of the Government in another particular. The speech discloses an entire absence of any policy on the part of the Administration in regard to the economic, social and political questions which are uppermost in this country at the present time. The hon. gentlemen who have just spoken on the Address drew the attention of the Government to the unrest in Canada, and spoke of " agitators " and so on. By so doing they helped to bring to the attention of the Government that it is high time we had in office in this country an Administration capable of propounding some policy which would help to bring that unrest to a speedy end.
Having referred to the first part of the speech from the Throne, I now come to the legislative programme which it outlines. What does it amount to? It says:
The ratification of The International Opium Convention renders it necessary to obtain legislation to carry into effect its provisions relating to the sale of opium, cocaine and other deleterious drugs.
No doubt that is important, perhaps important enough to be included in a speech from the Throne, but I submit that the people of this country are much more concerned at this time with the question of food than with the question of drugs, and that it would have been much better if the ministry, in advising His Excellency what should be brought before this Parliament for discussion,'had propounded some policy which would help to relieve the high cost of living, instead of skirting about that great issue and dragging in small affairs such as legislation for regulating the sale of drugs.

The reference to the Dominion franchise is the most important in the speech. As my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn) has said, it will raise in this House the whole question of representative and responsible government. My hon. friend in that remark touched upon what I conceive to be the most important of all matters which we have to consider in Canada at this time. During the war we got far away, in procedure and parliamentary methods, from the ideas of representative and responsible government as they have been held in the past, and we shall not find a solution for the unrest of our time until we have in some very considerable degree restored those safeguards of liberty, freedom and popular rights which have been so much neglected by the present Administration.
Take the only other reference in the speech from the Throne to anything in the nature of constructive legislation:
Other Bills will be presented for your consideration, including a Bill respecting Copyrights and Bills providing for the amendment of the Patent Act, of the Loan and Trust Companies Acts, the Indian Act, and the Exchequer Court Act.
That is the whole programme. While these Bills may be important enough, I submit that what is needed in the interests of this Dominion at the present time, more needed than any amendment to the Patent Act, is such an amendment of the tariff as will bring relief to producers and consumers. But the Government has not thought well to mention these questions which bear upon the needs of the country and are of vital importance. They have simply skirted around the vital questions and have dealt only with external matters or matters of petty concern, with which the attention of this House should not be taken up to any extent at this time.
The two refer nces to " confusion " and " dislocation " which the speech from the Throne contains suggest that what we must consider	above everything
else is how we can make our way out of this confusion and dislocation into something that will better represent the ordered system of affairs which we ought to have. In this Chamber to-day we have before us a visible embodiment of what Can be done, when the minds of men are put to it, in the way of reconstruction. We have here something which symbolizes the resurrection to a finer life, out of the ruins and ashes of the past, which is possible in connection with our

material environments. There is nothing in the way of material environment which we dare not hope to improve in this country.
Sir, unfortunately it is not only our material environments which have suffered during the war. There has been another loss, the greatest of all-the loss of human life, and the impairment of mind and body to many thousands of men who have suffered during this war. That is a loss which can never be made up. It is part of the infinite mystery. It belongs to the sacrifice which has been the price of freedom through all the ages. But the loss that we have suffered in material things and the losses we have suffered in human life do not make up the sum of destruction in this war. The war has also destroyed, as my hon. friend from London has said, much that is sacred and venerable in all our institutions, religious, political, and of every other nature. That indeed has been one of the most serious of all the effects of the war and to a very large extent accounts for the great unrest that exists in the world to-day. In faith, men " have faltered where they firmly stood." This is true alike in State and Church. Men's faitli in government is shaken, and in religion, and even in themselves. What we speak of to-day as Bolshevism had its origin in a country where they have had least in the way of free religious and governmental institutions to cling to. Wherever such has been the case, there the world has suffered most. What is needed to-day to bring about a change in conditions is a restoration of the faith that has been weakened, faith in an over-ruling Providence, faith in our political institutions, faith on the part of men and women in themselves.
That brings me to the point which I should like to make in answer to the hon. gentlemen who have spoken so eloquently of the restoration of these halls of Parliament. It is not the restoration of the Parliament buildings that is needed so much as the restoration of our parliamentary system of government. Mr. Speaker, of all that we have inherited through our British connection there is no possession so highly to be prized as the British system of government. The British constitution has been the model for our own. All members of Parliament from the day of Confederation down to the present have spoken of the greatness of that constitution. Its ancient origins is something that we reverence. We reverence even more the spirit of freedom which is conserved through that constitution. To the Fathers of Confederation and
to this Parliament, it has been, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said on a memorable occasion, as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night to lead this nation towards greater unity and nationhood.
But, Sir, the greatness of an institution, as of an individual, lies in its spirit; and an institution, no matter whether it be a material structure such as this or whether it be a constitution, which has lost the vital spirit that has lent it greatness, may become the very opposite of what it was intended to be. Instead of being a citadel of freedom it may become the home of autocracy or, what is perhaps worse, the abode of indecision and inaction in all things. We have suffered in this country, it is true, as a result of the war, but I regret to say, in part also, as a result of the inadequacy of the Administration to meet the needs of the country. That our political institutions, in common with all the other phases of our national life, should suffer through the action of war was inevitable. What is most unfortunate is that the loss is greater than it should have been, and this by reason of the failure of the administration to deal with the affairs of the country as they should have been dealt with.
I should like to point out wherein it seems to me this Parliament and the Government have ceased in large measure to be representative of the will of the people. That, after all, is the supreme, the fundamental fact which confronts us. If I do not deal with other matters that have been touched upon by the mover and seconder of the Address, it is because I feel that the restoration of our political life, and also in large measure of our social and economic life, is dependent on Parliament and the Government being in the truest sense representative of the will of the people. And it is because, throughout this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, people believe that the Government does not represent their will, that we hear the demand which we on this side of the House desire to voice for a new Parliament and a new Administration.
Mr. Speaker, let me draw the attention of the House to some of the essential conditions of parliamentary government, and show wherein during recent years we have wandered far from a compliance with these conditions. First of all, under any system of parliamentary government, the House of Commons, the elective chamber, should be a representative assembly. To say that an assembly is representative implies that its members have been returned under a fair franchise and on a policy which is

known and defined and which has been placed before the people.
Now, Sir, will any one pretend that this Parliament to-day is representative in that sense? Let us go back to the franchise under which hon. members seated in this House to-day secured their return to Parliament. Let us examine the methods by which the representation of the people has been effected and ask ourselves the question whether that, franchise was in accordance with the spirit of the constitution or was not in fact in direct violation of it. Take the War-time Elections Act-for it was under that Act that Parliament was elected. Consider the circumstances under which that measure was passed in this House.
Hon. gentlemen who were in the last Parliament will remember that Parliament had exhausted the period allotted to it by the constitution. The constitution of Canada lays it down that five years shall be the period of time for which a parliament shall sit, and the time of Parliament could not have been extended for a single day or a single hour beyond that period except by the consent of hon. members on this side of the House. Except by the unanimous resolution of both Houses of Parliament there would have been no amendment of the British North America Act extending the period of parliament for another year. If any hon. gentleman doubts that statement let him read the language of the Prime Minister (Sir Bobert Borden) himself, at the time the matter was under discussion. The Prime Minister took care to point out that it would be impossible- and that he would not suggest it-to have an extension of the period of parliament except by the unanimous agreement of both Houses. What were the conditions under which unanimous agreement was arrived at? What was the condition on which the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was leading the Liberal party in this House, consented to an extension? It was that Parliament in meeting another year would avoid controversial issues during the progress of the war. That consent was given on the highest grounds of patriotism and on the unequivocal understanding that in no way was Parliament parting with the right of the people to control, but rather that Parliament .might take a position which throughout the country it was felt at the time was obviously desirable, namely that there should be as little in the way of party strife as was possible during the period of the war. Let me read to the

House the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in giving consent to the extension and ask hon. members whether, hearing his words, they believe that the spirit of the Constitution was violated in the action that was subsequently taken by the administration. The words to which I refer may be found in Hansard in 1916, February 8, page 634. The matter had been fully discussed between the Rt. Hon. the leader of the Opposition and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister had given repeated assurances that the 'Government had no intention to do anything but simply "carry on" for the next year, as was necessary in the circumstances. Sir Wilfrid, having in mind the interests of the people, whose servant he was, and whose servant every hon. .member of this House at that time was, said:
I would observe, first of all, that it is not proposed here to alter the principle of the constitution. It is not proposed to override the control which the people have over parliament. It is simply proposed to suspend for the time being the operation of the constitution. If it were proposed to make away altogether with that principle which is embodied in the constitution, certainly I would oppose such an attempt with all my might. But no such thing is proposed. This measure simply proposes that the constitution shall be suspended for twelve months, at the expiration of which time it will resume its full force.
Mr. Speaker, mark these words and ask yourself the question: Was the spirit of the constitution lived up to or not?
It is not proposed to override the control which the people have over parliament.
Sir, do you wonder that the leader of the Opposition of those days felt that he had been grossly deceived; felt that the House had been grossly deceived; felt that the people of the country had been grossly deceived, when, after an understanding of this nature, hon. gentlemen who occupied the treasury benches of that day undertook to change the whole franchise which was the means of entry of the people's representatives, at the people's will, into this House of Commons, and to place upon the statute books one of the most infernal pieces of legislation that have been enacted in this country? I have used a strong term but I do not think it a bit too strong. But I will not trust to my own language to express my conception of that legislation. Let me quote the language of one who until almost yesterday was a member of the present administration. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) spoke during the debate upon that measure, and several other gentlemen who occupy the Treasury

benches to-day also recorded their views upon that occasion. I might quote the language of one and all to show what their impression of that legislation was, but I think the words of my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) meet the case so completely that further quotations are unnecessary. What were the hon. gentleman's words? They will be found on page 5596 of Hansard of 10th September, 1917:
The Bill before the House proposes to disfranchise arbitrarily a portion of the people of the country. . . . This legislation is objectionable in principle, and I deny that there is anything in the world to justify its introduction or its enactment. ... A proper regard for the future of this country and for our good name among the nations and peoples of the world compel one to oppose the measure. It is not founded upon any principle of a substantial character. ... I maintain that history will adjudge the act contemplated by this Bill as a blot upon our National career. And, unfortunately, it comes at a time when we are writing glorious and imperishable pages of our history which will be the future epics of this young nation.
Mark these words, Mr. Speaker.
A proper regard for the future of this country and for our good name among the nations and peoples of the world compel one to oppose the measure. History will adjudge the act contemplated by this Bill as a blot upon our National career.
And yet, Sir, it is to this "blot upon our National career " that the Administration owes its return to power, and it is as beneficiaries of this "blot upon our National career'' that hon. gentlemen opposite continue to occupy the Treasury benches and to draw the emoluments and enjoy the dignities, privileges and power attaching thereto. Is it any wonder, Sir, that the people of Canada have lost confidence in this Administration? They never had any confidence. How could they, when the Administration was returned to power through a violation of the most sacred right which belongs to a free people-the right to a just and honest franchise?
But, Sir, if that legislation is to be spoken of as a blot upon our country, what is to be paid of that other piece of legislation, the Military Voters' Aot, whereby the ballots of soldiers across the seas were so manipulated as do aid in the return of hon. gentlemen opposite? What is to be said of a piece pf legislation which, if not so designed- though it would even appear that such was the intention-was at least used as a mears not of furthering the will of the people of Canada but of preventing their will being accorded expression. It has been openly stated in this House, and it will not be denied by hon. gentlemen opposite, that as a consequence of that legislation whole bundles of votes of soldiers overseas-votes by bundles-were taken and put into this riding, and into that riding, and into another riding, at the instance of some committee that was in the confidence of the Administration. That was not done at the will of the brave men who were fighting overseas; they did not know, many of them, where their votes were to be recorded.
Mr. ROBERT H. BUTTS (Cape Breton South and Richmond): Oh you !


Hon. Mr. KING:: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, I did not gather the purport of his observation. If the hon. gentleman desires to ask a question I shall be very glad to answer it.


Mr. BUTTS:: Y-o-u.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Prohibition would be a good thing here.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: His case is a bad one. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is a little dry.


George Gerald King: The hon. member evidently feels that he is not in a position to make a statement that he would care to have the House listen to. If he wishes to resort to other methods of showing his disapproval of my statements I will not have the slightest objection. I would ask him, however, to show due regard for the dignity and decorum of Parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take your medicine.


George Gerald King: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that both the principle and the practice under the Act in question to which I have just referred have been defended by one of the members of the Administration openly in this House, and, by their silence, other members have acquiesced in both the principle and practice of taking votes from men overseas and assigning them to different constituencies without the knowledge or consent of voters abroad or electors at home. And what has been the effect of these Acts and these methods of dealing with the people's franchise? The effect is that Parliament has lost altogether its representative character, and in the country the people have ceased to have the faith they should have in our whole system of parliamentary government. Instead of regarding Parliament as the forum in which a nation's rights are to be maintained and its freedom preserved, forums have sprung

in touch with the country and of giving it the views of the people on great public issues. Have we not all observed how jealously England guards the rights pertaining to the representation of her people in Parliament? We watch our newspapers to see the results of by-elections in the old land as they occur from week to week or from month to month; and in the meantime no attention whatever is paid to the necessity for holding byelections in our own country. If we are to preserve the spirit of the constitution, which stands for the right of representation of the people in Parliament, we must seek to give to the people the right of representation as soon as possible after a vacancy in an electoral district occurs.
There is one other point that is of importance in considering the essential conditions of parliamentary Government. Parliament should be not only a representative assembly, but also a deliberative assembly. It should he a means of keeping the people in-formed'of the public business and of having all matters of concern to them freely and openly discussed. I shall not attempt to present in detail a statement of the extent to which there has been demoralization in this connection during and since the period of the war. I shall point out, however, three very obvious particulars which are of importance if we are to have a restoration of our political institutions.
Take first the Speech from the Throne, to which we have just listened. If that time-honoured custom has any purpose whatever, it is that of acquainting Parliament, and, through Parliament, the people, with the questions that are to come up for discussion and consideration here. Well, Sir, I have only to mention the last session of Parliament and what took place then to direct the attention of the House and the country to how far we have departed from that important safeguard of a people's rights and liberties. The most important measure that was put through this Parliament last session-the most important financially in the history of Canada-was the Bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway system; yet in the speech from the Throne of last session no mention whatever was made of the Government's intention to bring down legislation of that kind. How were the people of the country to be expected to anticipate the bringing down of such an important measure? Had reference been made to it in the speech from the Throne, we should have had an opportunity to hear from different parts of Canada an expression of opinion in regard to

its merits and the legislation itself might have been vastly improved as a consequence. I say at once to the Acting Prime Minister that if the Government has other legislation in contemplation at this session of which no mention has been .made in the speech from the Throne, we hope that the Government will announce to the House at the earliest possible moment what that legislation is to be. That is owing to the House; it is owing to the country.
Why, Sir, what an occasion of surprise it is to us when almost the day after His Excellency delivers the Speech from the Throne an announcement-it appears on the Order Paper-is	made that
the Government intends to introduce two amendments to the British North America Act. I shall not now discuss the proposed amendments; I shall not question what they are or what is the necessity for them. But I should like to point out that on only six occasions since the days of Confederation has the British North America Act been amended. If when the Speech from the Throne was delivered it was the intention of hon. gentlemen opposite to bring down an amendment to the British North America Act, they might at least have had the courtesy to tell His Excellency of it and to have had His Excellency so inform this House and the people. The amending of the Constitution is no small matter; it is a much more important matter than the amending of any drug Act, any copyright or patent law, or any of the things that are spoken of in the speech from the Throne. It is in one sense the most important matter which this Parliament can be called upon to consider. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that in these matters we have been departing altogether from the principles of parliamentary government. If you seek the cause of the unrest which prevails throughout the country, you will find it in these departures from a system of representative and responsible Government.
In this connection I may, perhaps, appropriately say a word in regard to Supply. [DOT] The voting of Supply is the only way in which the people can exercise their control over Parliament and Parliament its control over the Government. We have all observed that in previous sessions, while items of supply might be brought down early or late, at the very end of the session just when members were leaving, further large appropriations were asked for. Well, Sir, under such conditions it is impossible for the people to exercise the control which they should have over public expenditure;

and we on this side of the House hope that the Government will this session, so far as they can possibly do so, bring down their Estimates on the earliest possible day; that they will not in the dying days of the session, when the House will have practically no opportunity of considering them, bring down appropriations of further millions of the people's money.
Final decisions upon matters of national import should not be made by ministers in their private rooms; should not be made without opportunity being afforded to the House of Commons to consider them in the first instance. After all, it is the public business that we are discussing here, and the country has the right to have submitted to it all that is essential in regard to large transactions, before those transactions are finally put beyond the power of this Parliament. I refer again to the Grand Trunk railway agreement. That is one of the largest transactions that this country . has ever undertaken. What position are we in to-day? We who sit here in the House of Commons as the representatives of the people have been put in the humiliating position during the last fortnight of reading from cable despatches of approval being given by English shareholders to an agreement with the Government of Canada -an agreement concerning the terms of which we as members of Parliament have not the slightest knowledge. I ask if that is what is owing to the Bouse of Commons; if that is what is owing to the people of Canada? I hope that it is not too late for the aiinistry to consider the advisability- notwithstanding the fact that at the last session of Parliament they said that they would not accord that right to the Canadian people-of laying on the table of the House that agreement and of asking for its approval, just as they are asking the House to approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria.
Mr. Speaker, there should be an end to Government by Order in Council. Because of the extent to which the Administration carried on Government by Order in Council during the period of the war, it may be difficult for them to realize that this method of Government-the method followed in the old days, 80 years ago-is not the method of Government which we have come to regard as free and representative Government. During the war, Government by Order in Council may have been necessary and may have been tolerated to a large extent by the people; but the time has now
come when, if we are to have Government in the true sense of the word, that Government must be by Parliament and through Parliament; it must not be by the substitution of the diplomacy of Cabinet councils, carried on by Cabinet ministers in their secret chambers, for the free discussions and questionings of the ministry in this House in regard to public affairs.
If we are to restore the deliberative aspect of this assembly, ministers should be in their seats in the House where they can answer the questions put to them in regard to public business. The Prime Minister should be in his seat to answer questions with regard to matters of policy. I hasten to express the sympathy which all of us have with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in that, through the impairment of his health, he is prevented from being here at this time. I hope that no hon. member will endeavour to misconstrue my reference at this moment as being in any way inconsiderate. Indeed, I think a lack of consideration was shown by his colleagues in virtually compelling the Prime Minister to remain at the head of the Government, in spite of his protests over and over again that he was not in a position to attend to public affairs and that he wished to be relieved from that duty altogether. It was a mistaken kindness to him and to the country to ask him to assume a nominal leadership when it was impossible for him to assume [DOT]any leadership at all. I might remind the House that during the period of the war and since the war the Prime Minister as well as two or three of his colleagues have been not merely out of this House but in large part out of the country. That is .the system which has grown up, and it shows the indifference of the Government to the method of carrying on Parliamentary representation here. What is happening at [DOT] this very moment? If what we read in the newspapers to-day is correct, two of my right hon. friend's colleagues are down in New York discussing the business of this country with the Prime Minister.


Ernest Lapointe: No truck or trade with the Yankee.


George Gerald King: Why should we
have to go to New York to deal with questions that affect this country? The ministers should be here so that they can answer questions. It is astounding, when we see on the other side an endeavour to revive the old cry " No further truck or trade with the Yankees," that our ministers

rush off to New York to discuss what is to be the policy, if there is to be any policy of the Government for the next few months to come.
What are the consequences of the frequent absences of the Prime Minister? One is the rumor that the Prime Minister has either conditionally or absolutely tendered his resignation; that he has no intention whatever of returning to Parliament or of occupying a seat in this House. That rumour may be wholly false, and I hope my right hon. friend will give the House some definite statement on this all important matter. But the circumstance that it is so persistently stated that the Prime Minister has no intention of coming back; that he is merely holding the bridge, so to speak, until his colleagues can find someone to take bis place, is having an unsettling effect throughout the whole of this country. What is another effect arising out of the same cause? We are told that not only are we to have the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster), who is present in the House to-day, as the leader, but during the evenings or during other periods we are to have an acting leader of the House in addition.


George Green Foster: Is that a rumour or a fact?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That we hope to find out during the course of the next few days, but the fact is that we do not know whether we are facing a Government without a head or facing a Government with three heads.
Unfortunate as we are with regard to the Prime Minister, we are almost equally unfortunate with respect to the personnel of the Cabinet. Conditions at the present time remind one of the conditions as they were prior to 1896 when the Government of that day went to pieces. The only difference is that at that time there were seven bolters who went all at once, and to-day there are seven of them who have disappeared, one by one. At that time the political edifice was dynamited from within; to-day it is crumbling to pieces. That is the only difference. Let me read the names of the resignations there have been of ministers: first, Hon. T. W. Crothers, on November 7, 1918; then, Hon. T. A. Crerar, June 16, 1919; Sir Thomas White, July 9, 1919; Hon. F. B. Carvell, August 1, 1919; Hon. S. C. Mewburn, January 15, 1920, and Hon. A. K. Maclean, February 23, 1920. Now it is rumoured that the Prime
[Mr. Kingr-l
Minister himself is to go. Why, Sir, that is a small ministry all in itself, a ministry of very considerable proportions, and with the Government beginning to split up as it is in that way, the public mind is kept in a restless condition to see who is to be the next one to come out. In that way, we are never sure exactly where we are.


Ernest Lapointe: Providence may choose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While the Government has been indifferent in the regard mentioned, it has been equally indifferent so far as the deliberative nature of this assembly is concerned, in withdrawing ministers to the other Chamber where they are beyond questioning altogether. We have at the present time in the Senate no less than three ministers holding portfolios, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and the Postmaster General. In times like this, of all times, the minister who holds the portfolio of Soldiers' Civil Re-establisment should be in this House where he can be questioned, and so should the Minister of Labour; but these gentlemen, along with the Postmaster General, are taken over to the other Chamber, so that the people's representatives here are put in the position, when they ask questions on .many matters, of being unable to obtain authoritative replies at the time information is so necessary in connection with public discussion.
Then there has been the further tendency of the gradual shifting over to irresponsible commissions, boards and delegates of one kind or another, of a great deal of the business that should be carried on by the Government itself. I heard a gentleman say the other day that he thought the time had come when we should have government by the Government, instead of government by commissions, delegates and boards of different kinds. The effect of all this is that, in one way or another, instead of the business of Parliament being discussed here in a deliberative fashion, the country is being committed directly and indirectly to policies of which it has no knowledge, by persons who in no way owe responsibility to the people through their representatives in this House.
There are just two further matters to which I will refer, and I think I can promise the House that I shall be through by six o'clock. I have spoken of the representative nature of this deliberative assembly. Let me say a word in regard to what I think the spirit of the Constitution demands with respect to the representative

character of the Cabinet. Canada is a country of wide geographical areas. Up to the time of Confederation it was a country of scattered provinces and territories. The work of nation-building ever since has consisted in welding into one Dominion the various provinces and territories, and cementing between the parts, bonds of friendship, mutual understanding, and common interest. The representative character of the Cabinet has been one of the most effective means to this highly important end, so that it is essential we should have a Cabinet that will represent in a general way the various important considerations of race, religion, economic interest and provincial right and concern. I shall not speak of more than one of these, but every Cabinet that there has been from the time of Confederation up to the present has had regard for the different elements that go to make up the nation in a way that will tend to unite and cement together the different portions of the Dominion.
We have representing the province of Quebec in this House two hon. gentlemen whom I see opposite to me at the moment, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne). Both these hon. gentlemen are English-speaking. There is not in the Cabinet a single representative of the French-Canadians in this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Postmaster General?


George Gerald King: I hear someone say " What about the Postmaster Generali' Well, Sir, we cannot say that the Postmaster General represents the French-Canadians.


Ernest Lapointe: He could not get ten votes in any riding in Quebec.


George Gerald King: The Postmaster General has removed his r sidence from the province of Quebec altogether, and has come to reside permanently in the province of Ontario; but more than that, the Postmaster General ran in two constituencies in the last election when the voice of the people was heard in the matter of representation. He ran in the constituency of Laurier-Out-Temont and was defeated there by a majority of 1,247. He ran in the constituency of Champlain and was defeated there by a majority of 6,623. In the face of that, can it be said that the Postmaster General represents the French-speaking element of the province of Quebec?
But that is not the most serious feature. From the confines of the city of Montreal right through to the Atlantic
ocean there is not a single Cabinet minister, with or without a portfolio, in the Government. The province of Nova Scotia has no representative in the Cabinet; the province of New Brunswick has no representative in the Cabinet; the province of Prince Edward Island has no representative in the Cabinet. That is to say, something like 3,000,000 of the people of this country are without any representation in the Government, so far as their province is concerned. How in the face of a situation like that, can we longer talk about representative government in this country? Why is there no representation? The answer is plain. The people have lost faith in the Government, and the Government has lost faith in the people; neither has any longer any faith in the other, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe they are carrying on representative government in this country. No, Sir, if we wish to remedy the unrest in this country let us have a government that is representative of all classes and of all provinces in Canada.
Just this word in conclusion, for it helps to explain all the rest. What is the most fundamental of all principles underlying responsible Government? It is that of collective cabinet responsibility-that 'there should be a cabinet with a known policy; that its policy should be known and defined as well as its members. Will any one pretend that hon. gentlemen opposite have a defined policy? Why, there are as many policies as there are members in the Cabinet. There are as many opinions as there are members in the Cabinet. When the Prime Minister talks of resigning, one aspirant for the leadership will make a speech in which he will announce a policy regarding trade or some other question, but the other members of the Cabinet do not necessarily follow him. Other aspirants announce other policies. We have no voice of the ministry as a whole, on any great question of national policy. Not only that, but among the Government's own followers in the Senate and in this House, there are those who are framing up new policies for the Administration, showing that they have no faith in the Government any longer. The Government press, which has been behind the Government all along, comes forward with suggestions for a new alignment of parties, so that somehow, in some fashion, we can get back to some system of Government where we will have a Cabinet with a known policy able to carry on the business of the country in accordance with the country's wishes.

o4

What lies at the back of everything else is the absence of any collective cabinet responsibility. How is that to be remedied? Why is there no Government policy to-day? Hon. gentlemen know the reason very well. The Government is composed of two factions, two groups of men of different attitudes of mind, and their job for the last year or two has been, not to find a policy, but to see how they can get along without a policy so they can hold together. If there is any doubt on that question let the ministry answer.
When the war was over one would have supposed that the Prime Minister would have made some statement to the House as to what his post-war policy was to be. The ministry was elected as a war ministry, and when the war was over its purpose was gone. It had no policy at any time other than to carry on the war. If it had I should like any member of the ministry to state what it was. I say it had no policy except to "win the war," and when the war was won it had nothing further to say as to what it represented in the country. One would have supposed that under these conditions the Prime Minister would have stated to the people of this country that the Government would carry on a little longer until demobilization had been completed and that he would then issue a statement of the Government's policies for post-war conditions and would appeal to the people and give them an opportunity of approving those policies. That would have been the proper constitutional method, but was that done? No, that chance was lost, and from the moment that chance went by, the Government began to lose the confidence of the people; it began to lose its ministers one by one, it began to lose by-elections one by one. It became a crumbling edifice until to-day there is only left a remnant of what one could call a united cabinet.
What is the position as stated by the Government itself ? The people of this country were prepared to allow the ministry to carry on for a session or two for the purpose of demobilization. That would have brought the situation up to the beginning of last session. Then the job for the Government would have teen limited to getting through that session.
My hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) will recall that he and some of those who came into the Government as Unionist Liberals held a meeting and discussed how they could stay longer in touch with those who represented the other element of which the

Cabinet was composed. When that meeting was over, my hon. friend gave out a statement as to its result, which appeared in the press throughout the country on October 1. I shall read only one paragraph of that statement:
The meeting expressed unqualified approval of the war policy of the Union Government, and the Government is congratulated on its success.
That was self-congratulation.
The concensus of opinion was, as the members were elected to support Union Government, it is their intention to continue to do so, and the hope was strongly expressed that the Government would be able at an early date to evolve a progressive policy satisfactory to the country to meet the after the war conditions.
Note that. Here is one section of the ministry saying to the other section of the ministry and to the country that they strongly hope that in some way or another the ministry will be able to frame a policy to deal with post-war conditions. Was there ever such an exhibition of cabinet incompetency as is expressed in those words? Well, that was sufficient to keep the Government together through last session. Then we came to the Christmas recess, when the job was to hang on until another session came. That became pretty difficult. Matters grew more and more tense in the Cabinet, as my hon. friends know, and finally there was pretty nearly an explosion. The papers came out on December 15 with headlines such as these:	"Sir
R. L. Borden to retiie from public life- Will make announcement to gathering of supporters-Heeds Medical advice-Parliament will meet in February with new Premier and leader of Unionists." We all remember what consternation there was when it was said that the Prime Minister was to resign. Why did he not resign? The answer is to be found in the newspaper headlines of the following day " Couldn't find successor, so Premier sticks." They have been looking for a successor ever since, but have not found one. Then came the statement which the Prime Minister issued himself before he went away on leave. It appeared in all the papers and is well known to every hon. member of this House. I shall read only one paragraph. It is a sort of political last will and testament by the Prime Minister. To quote:
Sir Robert Borden desires that the situation as here outlined-
He had been outlining what took place in the Cabinet.

shall be .placed before his supporters in Parliament, and he considers it essential that they

should approve of the arrangement which his colleagues have urged and which he has accepted.
It was the purpose of the Prime Minister to have set forth to the country during the recent session the policies for which the Government would stand during the life of the present parliament. During his illness, and just before .his departure, he embodied his proposals in written form, and, on the second of October, the day before he left Ottawa, he submitted yiem to a gathering of Government supporters. It was his desire that these proposals should be taken into consideration by those present and that at a further gathering, the suggestions of senators and members should be placed before him, after which he intended to formulate these policies from his place in parliament as controlling the action of the Government during the period mentioned.
Some of the proposals thus presented have since been carried out by action taken during the recent session. Sir Robert Borden desires that after due consideration of the advice and suggestions of the supporters of the Government in parliament the policies as finally accepted shall be presented to Parliament and to the people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is the present situation. The Prime Minister has gone away. He has left some document which is to be discussed by his followers in Parliament. He has set out what he thinks should be the policy of the party, and if all cannot agree on that policy ae outlined by him, then he and they must part company. That, Mr. Speaker, is what it amounts to. In other words, instead of the policy being decided by the party's followers, or by a convention representative of the people belonging to the party, the Prime Minister, as an individual, lays down what is to be adopted, and if it is possible to secure agreement on his policy they will carry on. But what does this document say? "During the life of the present Parliament,"-another couple of years. That is the proposal that is put before the country at this time. This Government and this House, as unrepresentative as it is, is to be continued for another couple of years through some policy that is yet to be framed and that is still unknown. Why, Sir, a position of that kind is impossible, and, in the opinion of the people, will prove intolerable.
There is no remedy for such % situation except the remedy which the constitution provides; that is to say, at the earliest possible moment there should be an appeal to the people of the country so that the will of the people shall be known and voiced by a parliament and government that is truly representative. Sir, we have passed the time when people exist for the sake of governments. People do not exist to-day for the sake of
:u
governments. On the 'contrary, governments exist to give expression to the will of the people. Having this fundamental principle in mind, therefore, I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, (Mr. D. D. McKenzie), that the following be added to the Address to His Excellency:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that the conditions under which the Government was formed and the present House of Commons was elected have now passed away, and that new conditions have arisen which are not being adequately met. The regrettable protracted absence of the Prime Minister, the widely accepted belief that it is not his intention to return to the duties of his office, the makeshift arrangements for the direction of important departments to which no minister has been regularly appointed, the attempt to carry on the public business when the three eastern Maritime P.ovinces are entirely unrepresented in the Cabinet-these and other things operate to produce a condition of uncertainty and instability from which a vigourous and efficient administration of the Dominion's af-airs cannot he expected.
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that in the interest of the peace, order, and good government of this Dominion such a condition of our public affairs should be brought to a speedy termination, and that the only effective remedy is to he found in an appeal to the electors at a general election.
We, therefore, respectfully represent that Your Excellency's advisers should forthwith bring forward the promised Franchise Bill for the enrollment of the electors and give it precedence over all other business, and that upon the enactment of such a measure as may he necessary, and the making of temporary provisions for the urgent public service, they should take the proper constitutional steps to obtain Your Excellency's approval of an appeal to the people at the polls.
I submit this resolution, Sir, as being fundamental in the way of what is necessary in the reconstruction of our political institutions.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) : Mr. Speaker, observing the time honoured custom which it is a delight for me to follow this evening I beg to tender my congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne and to add my words of felicitation to those that have been uttered by the Leader of the Opposition. These two gentlemen have acquitted themselves in a thoroughly workmanlike manner. They have shown themselves proficient in parliamentary oratory and they have produced a structure which

in beauty of language, in finish, in diction, and in practical sound suggestions and common sense will stand well on the records of Parliament with similar efforts from Confederation to the present day.
Now I must make some comment in a discursive way on the different points that have been raised by the leader of the Opposition, but I do not wish to spend the entire evening in replying to the hon. gentleman, and he will excuse me if, after some more or less extended comments upon what he has said, I take up certain subjects somewhat beyond the line of his criticism. It is said that the wish is father to the thought and I imagine that as my hon. friend expressed the view that the edifice occupied heretofore by the present Government was a crumbling edifice, his observation was prompted by the desire that it should crumble and that he might speedily gee it crumble. Well, an edifice may or may not crumble, but there is one structure which will not crumble or decay, and that is the good, efficient, courageous work which this Government has performed since it came into existence. That monument is indestructible.
My hon. friend was not satisfied with the speech from the Throne. In all my political experience I have not known a leader of the Opposition to be other than dissatisfied; it is the business of the leader of the Opposition not to be satisfied with the speech. Nor was my hon. friend satisfied with the gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address; his congratulations to those gentlemen were followed by criticisms of them. My hon. friend declared that one of the gentlemen dealt with matters away in the past and that did not please him, the other gentleman projected himself into the future, and that pleased my hon. friend still less. Evidently the only thing that is secure to my hon. friend is the little bit of the present upon which he stands. Neither his past nor his future has very many charms for him in either retrospect or outlook.
The leader of the Opposition objected to so much of the speech being taken up with allusions to external affairs. My hon. friend is behind the times. Where has he been living this last five years?


An hon. MEMBER:: In the States.
Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER:	Where has
my hon. friend been living during the time in which Canada has been so very much taken up with external affairs. I observe sitting opposite me one hon. gentleman who passed several years, and

under trying circumstances showed his devotion to the cause of Canada and the Empire, in foreign fields. Let me tell my hon. friend that Canada has been largely living abroad during these last five years. It has been living in the hearts of its soldiers, living in its prayers for their success and their welfare, echoing their desire * for victory for the cause which they championed and glorying in the reputation and1 the honour which those brave men conferred upon their country and ultimately brought back unsullied when the cruel war in which they fought was at an end. Why should we disjoin this Canada of ours from the part we have taken in external affairs in the last few years which, may I not hope, is but the beginning of that common world-wide interest which helps to make a people less provincial and directs them into the life movements and currents of the great body of humanity of which they form a part?
My hon. friend found one reference in the speech from the Throne which was sweet to his taste and that was the allusion to the Franchise Bill. The allusion was sweet to his taste because it gave him an opportunity to go back to the warmed-over porridge in the kettle which has already been dealt with, a matter which has been fought out and fought out, with the result that the various theories and imaginative processes of my hon. friend have been exploded over and over again. However, the subject served for a foundation for some criticisms by my hon. friend and seemed .to please him. He was very much concerned as to this Government's constitutional way of conducting the affairs of the country, and he based a complaint against the speech from the Throne in that he did not set forth the various changes in the tariff which were to be made during this session	of Parliament.
Now my hon. friend might very well have known, had he thought for a moment, that it is dangerous work to put a tariff schedule in the King's speech. It has never been done, I believe, in this or any other country. Consequently I think that part of his criticism fell rather short.
He deplored the waste of material, the waste of human life and the waste of moral and religious fibre. No one can deplore that more than myself and gentlemen on this side of the House in common with all other hon. members. War is cruel, and wasteful. Its effects are not confined to the year in which it rages, they remain and burrow deep into human nature, and on the

average they do not elevate, but they depress and degrade our humanity. There are great bursts of heroism, splendid feats of gallantry, great occasions when the soldier loses all thought of self in the mighty cause for which he is waging war and venturing his life,-those are high and brilliant gleams in the general gloom, but war in the end and on the average depresses and degrades humanity.
But what are we in this Parliament to do to restore the religious faith and moral fibre of the nation? In ourselves we may seek to restore.it; in others it must be a process between themselves and their God- between themselves and their own conscience, which in each is the voice of God. We must all pray and hope that this great cruel war will not have so far wasted the faith, the religious fervour and the moral strength of our people that we may not quickly restore ourselves, our country and the world to the basis upon which we stood when this war commenced.
My hon. friend quarrels with the autocratic methods, the indecision and the inadequacy of the administration. I shall deal with that a little later in a general way, and yet with special reference to his criticism. He calls for a new Parliament and a new Government, and bases his demand, amongst other things, upon this foundation: that as the result of an agreement between both sides of the House a year's extension of the Parliamentary term was allowed; and then he declares that the most infernal piece of legislation that stands to the record of any Government was in that year of extension perpetrated by the Parliament of Canada.
Now, I want to ask my hon. friend if when the Parliamentary term was extended a year, it was extended with the condition that Parliament should be shorn of any one of its rights? One of the rights of Parliament is legislation upon the franchise, and that extension of life was a year's extension with full powers, and without restriction. In the full possession of those powers Parliament enacted a piece of franchise legislation which, whatever my hon. friend may think, was well received by the vast proportion of the loyal people of this country as a necessary piece of war legislation.
In referring to the proposed Franchise Bill my hon. friend gave us a promise that if we brought in a proper Bill-that is, one which pleased him-he would support it; but if we brought in an improper Bill-one which did not please my hon. friend-then
there would be war to the knife; or if we did not adopt certain provisions we must give very good reasons why. We shall bring in a Bill which ought to satisfy my hion. friend, and which ought to satisfy his friends on his side of the House if they are reasonable, as I believe they will be, and we will welcome his and their aid towards its perfection. My hon. friend spoke of the provincial franchises and of their adoption, but I think we are face to face with somewhat of a new condition in that respect; however when our Bill is brought down the House will judge as to its foundations and what is built upon these foundations.
My hon. friend declared that Parliament has not only ceased to be representative but that it has ceased to be deliberative. Well, that is news to me. Deliberation consists in two things:	Thought over the
measures which shall be adopted, and free expression of views with reference to such measures. We are not responsible for gentlemen on the other side of the House if they do not apply their thoughts to our measures* and we have not controlled any fair expression of their views upon these measures. In what respect, then, has this ceased to be a deliberative assembly? I think my hon. friend's criticism is not quite just in that respect. He instances as a reason why that the Grand Trunk agreement, white it has lately been submitted to the shareholders of the company in Great Britain, was not submitted to this deliberative assembly, and be finds fault with us in two directions: First, that the agreement was not mentioned in the speech from the Throne last session; and second, that it was not submitted for the approval of the House. Had my hon. friend exercised his memory a little he would have recollected that a certain distinguished leader of the Liberal Government and party in this country at a certain time introduced into Parliament a most important Bill, and one which has had most important consequences', to wit, the Grand Trunk Pacific measure, and that although that measure was formed in the minds of the Government and many of their supporters at the time when the speech from the Throne wais written no mention of that legislation' was made therein. So there are lapses on his own side.
But there was a reason for the omission of any mention of the Grand Trunk agreement in the speech from the Throne last session. That agreement and the legislation upon which to found it depended upon an agreement being reached with the Grand Trunk authorities, and although nearly two

years had passed while the question was being discussed more or less, no arrangement had been come to when the speech from the Throne was read, and consequently no legislation could be promised with reference thereto. After the session h;ad proceeded for some time an agreement was arrived at. It was only then that it was in a condition to be brought down to Parliament, and it was then brought down. As to his quarrel with the Government because they have not yet submitted the Grand Trunk agreement to the deliberation of the House of Commons, well, what was submitted to the House of Commons, debated in the House of Commons and passed by the House of Commons, was the legislation which authorized an agreement to be made, and laid down the conditions of that agreement. So that every bit of pertinent information with reference to it was deliberated upon and passed by this House and is known to hon. members if they studied the legislation which was passed. But the agreement itself will now be laid on the table.
The hon. gentleman also found fault with the Government in that while they had made mention of an opium convention in the Speech from the Throne, they had made no mention of proposed amendments to the British North America Act. Well, before the very first working day of the session announcement is made under the Notices of Motion upon the Order Paper that amendments will be asked to the British North America Act therefore my hon. friend and his friends have all the information at exactly the same time as they would have had it if the proposed legislation had been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is a question of choice whether the information should be given in the Speech from the Throne or otherwise; but there is no grievance on the part of the House of Commons because of prompt and early notice not having been given by mention of the proposed legislation in the Speech from the Throne. Neither in the Speech nor in the mere announcement of the title of the Bill are the provisions of the Bill made known; consequently my hon. friend and his friends are just as far ahead as they possibly could have been had notice been given in any other form than that which was actually adopted.
Mr. hon. friend gives us that old, well-worn bit of advice and caution: Bring down your Supply early. Well, we have heard that for thirty years from both sides and under all Governments. It is always a pious resolution, -that the Supply should be

brought down early. Generally it is brought down early-not all of it, but the most of it. But the House of Commons is a pernickety association of individuals in some respects. If we were to bring down the whole of the Supply and put it on the Table to-morrow it would be the last days of the session before a militant Opposition would do more than discuss all manners of issues except the real nature of the Supply itself. That is a phenomenon that we may all think over and account for as best we can. But I agree that Supply should be early put before the House 1 agree also with the suggestion made by my hon. friend who moved the Address this afternoon (Mr. Cronyn): That some method might he do' vised to provide that after the Estimates have been presented to the House they shall be examined by a committee or some body of that kind and put in proper shape so that we may understand them better and be enabled to come to better conclusions upon them. If we are allowed to remain a little . while longer in this crumbling edifice that my hon. friend so pathetically described this afternoon, we may find some method by which improvement can be made in that respect.
My hon. friend contends that it is time that Government by Order in Council should cease. I will take that up a little later and deal with it somewhat more exhaustively than I can at this moment.
The hon. gentleman went on to declare that ministers should be in their seats. So they should. But the difficulty is for us all to do just what we should do. If ministers were always in their seats, atrophy, dislocation and delay might result in other important respects which bear a close relation to the promptness with which the business can be put through Parliament. The members of the House have a perfect right to demand that a fair proportion of ministers should be in their seats; that ministers, certainly when their own departments are under consideration, should be here. But it is practically impossible, having regard to the duties which are laid upon ministers to-day with their large departments and the multiplied demands which are made upon their, attention, absolutely to tie themselves to their seats in Parliament during all the hours that Parliament is in session. There must be some reasonable give and take in respect to that matter.
But my hon. friend goes on to develop hia thesis by saying that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) should be in his place, and his argument, if it meant anything, was: No matter what are the conditions;

no matter what the state of his health, you are not doing your duty to Parliament unless you have your Prime Minister in his seat now and constantly during the session. I do not think that the good sense of the House or of the country will march easily with my hon. friend's opinion in that respect. I have alluded once before somewhere to the pathetic side of the life and work of a Prime Minister of this Dominion; for it has its pathetic side. My hon. friend is young and strong and the future is before him. If he ever gets out from the light and free atmosphere of criticism and assumes the burdens of the office of Prime Minister of this country, he will find that they are nerve-racking and body-racking; that they involve body toil and body pain; that morally, mentally and physically there is a strain upon the man who holds that office, all of which call for sympathy rather than criticism when the strain proves to be too great to bear. And if that is true in normal times, when we have storms and ebullitions only under shelter of the wings of peace, what must be involved in these duties in times such as we have lately gone through, when the war winds blow, when currents and counter-currents come alternately; when immense responsibilities must be assumed and quick decisions made?- What the duties of .the Prime Minister must be under these conditions I know, because I have sat by and have seen. I tell you that in my heart of hearts, as in the , heart of hearts of all of us, there will be a spot free from censure, free from criticism, free from stern rebuke-a spot in which is generated human nature's just recognition of merit and of toil. This I say of what must fairly be our attitude with regard to the Prime Minister. We have not failed to recognize the responsibilities devolving upon the Leader of the Opposition in time of peace or in time of war. His also is a brain-racking and a body-racking office, and my sympathies went out to the old chief who lead the battalions of hon. gentlemen opposite for so many years, when in his advancing years I noted how the sense of the responsibilities and of the burdens which he had to bear grew upon him. 1 knew that in his mind and in his heart there were struggles of statesmanship but little known to those wrho could see only what was apparent from the outside.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition says that certain Ministers should have been here last year and the session before that. He asserts that the Prime Minister and several of his Ministers were not only out of this House but out of Canada:	That
they were in Europe, and that they should have been here. I challenge that position and I ask the judgment of the people of Canada upon it.
I ask the judgment of the people of Canada on that statement with a full impression and conviction that the people do not agree with my hon. friend in that respect. If 500,000 of the bone and sinew, the flower of this country, left home and business, went across the seas, spent their years, their blood, many of them their lives, for the cause for which we were all fighting, and gained the cause, who shall rise and say that the responsible ministers shall not, after the victories of the war, strive to make certain the victories of the peace? If the dictum of my hon. friend holds good, Lloyd George would have tied himself down in Downing street. Did he? The Italian ministers would have tied themselves down in Rome. Did they? The United States President would have confined himself to Washington. Did he? Not simply a responsible minister, but the head of that country, thought-and his country agreed with him-that when the lines were to be gathered up after war's ravages and peace was to be framed and tempered to the conditions of the time, it was no less a person than himself, with his authority and his representative position, who should bo on the spot to lay the lines of peace. Surely my hon. friend cannot hold to the dictum he has laid down. If he does, he puts himself in the minority in this country and in the world.
My hon. friend first mentions some things as rumours. Then in that geometric or arithmetic progression upon which we go from less to greater, his next sentence makes of those rumours facts, and on those facts, whose mothers were rumours, he founds an argument for an indictment of the Government. Imagination is a fine servant, but a bad master; and imagination is the mother of rumours, and rumours are mischievous and generally as far off from facts as it is possible to get them. There would in fact be no spice in a rumour if it were a fact. Rumour is not a fact, and thereby it allures, and it catches, and it does not tie you down to argument. It is so easy to say: So-and-so told me such-and-such. Off it goes; nobody is responsible; but it is on its trot; it is started in the race, and it goes to the uttermost parts of the world. And so on all the rumours which he then makes into facts, he founds the pleasing proposition that there was a Government seated opposite him that had one head, two heads, three heads-the first,

very respectable, having one head; in the second place a monstrosity, having.two; in the third place, a very hideous monster with three heads. The Government has one head and one only; it has not two and it has not three. But while one head is away, another, very humbly and in a very poor way, undertakes to do, as far as he can, what the real head would do if he were present. And under the circumstances of the present, when the sick man is absent searching for a return of the health which has been shattered by his devotion to the duties and responsibilities of office, the onerous responsibilities of the war, one of the members of his Cabinet undertakes to fill his place, however unworthily, by the good grace of his fellow-members and his supporters and of the House as well. My hon. friend would surely not object to that.
As to the proposition which he adds to that-and that rumour developed into a fact with which he clenched his argument that there was a one-man proposition somewhere and that in this whole business there was a concealed design, and not a healthful one-let me set my hon. friend's mind at rest. The right hon. leader of the Government is away, unfortunately, and with regret we say it, in search of a very much shattered health. On the conditions of two or three or four months free from the cares of office, as far as he can be free, depends entirely whether he shall ever lead this Government again or not. But there is nothing up the sleeve; the fact is absolutely that and nothing more. If a kind Providence permits and health is restored in reasonable time, we shall have the leader of the Government back again.
My hon. friend objects to having members of the Government in the Senate. Since when? Is his party behind him in that respect? Have a Senate and have no member of the Government in it? It has not been so in the past; it will not be so in the future. The more the Senate is useful, the more it will demand that responsible members of the Government shall be in the Senate to state their policy, and their policy will be carried out in that way. Since when did my hon. friend develop this strange theory that because a man was not successful in a constituency for the Commons he could not represent his province in the Senate? Such a theory does not stand on good ground. The Senate is not a body elected by the electors. A senator is a man appointed under the constitution from a certain province, who represents his province, and Mr. Blondin, a member of our Government, as surely re-
[Sir George Foster.!
presents his province as a senator as the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) represents his province on the electoral basis in the House of Commons.


Ernest Lapointe: That is too much.


George Green Foster: resolution is that with all possible speed we should immediately put through a Franchise Bill and then appeal to the country in order to get the opinion of the people afresh and obtain a new Parliament and a new Government. Does my hon. friend see no lurking shadows of future disaster to himself and his party if the suggestion should be acted upon and within a fortnight or three weeks we were put to the test of a general election? Was the success of his party at the last general election so great, so striking, that it makes him all of a hunger for another contest? Or is this a bit of fine strategical camouflage under a pretty well-founded assumption, as he reads things, that the vote will not carry in this House and that he will have all the honour of declaring for a bold and vigorous strategy without exposing himself to any of the disaster which might follow from a realization of what he pleads for? However, I am not going to discuss that point further to-night. Having wearied the House to this length, I shall make a few remarks on what is, after all, the gist of this whole campaign with reference to the present Government. The gist of the whole campaign is to get in full swing rumours, headlines, statements, whether true or false, assertions of every kind, allegations, and, in short, anything at all that is calculated to create the impression that this Government has had no strength, has done nothing in the two years of its existence, has been an uncourageous, an indecisive and an inadequate Administration. Is not that the sum iand substance of it? Is not that what is sought to be impressed on the people largely in order that, under such an impression, the downfall of a really good and honest and efficient Government may be brought about? I propose, with the indulgence of the House, to devote a few moments to a very brief statement of some things that have been done since the election of 1917, and I think I shall be borne out in the assertion that a campaign of thoughtless and baseless, and in some respects, mischievous, if not malevolent, criticism has been and is being levelled against the Government.
The Government has suffered, and why? Because its members have been too busy to travel over the country to refute these false statements and misrepresentations on platforms. For instance, put a man in the War Department at Ottawa during these last four years of war, with all its responsibilities and trying circumstances, with its nights and days of unremitting toil, and
[Sir George Foster.!
then ask him to leave his desk, his bureau, his directing seat, and go through this country on weary weeks of combatting these criticisms and misrepresentations. He would be recreant to his duty, recreant to the trust the country had reposed in him if he attempted this. It is to his disadvantage, it is to the disadvantage of the Government that this cannot be done. But it is a case in which the Government must do its duty in regard to the work which is immediately before it, no matter what the people may be saying outside. We have taken that resposibility. We have been up against that disadvantage, and we are up against it to-day. But truth is still truth, and the people of this country axe, I think, on the whole, sensible, fair-minded and truth-loving. Now that the war is over and some of the hardest problems of peace have been met and put in the way of solution, the Government will find its methods and means to place the whole truth before the country. And when the whole truth is heard and the whole matter is made plain, misrepresentation will not score a victory, but rather an honest and efficient devotion to duty will carry the approval of the great fair-play-loving body of the Canadian electorate. I stand here to-night, with the experience I have had in public life, and make this assertion, which I believe to be absolutely true: That no Government since Confederation has faced greater responsibilities and met them more efficiently, or has so fair a record in performances, as this Government which has carried through the work of the war. No Government that I have known has more fully carried out the pledges that it made upon the platform upon which it was elected than has this present Government; and I propose to prove both these assertions if the House will give me its attention.
We may divide the work of the Government into three branches: The home work and policy, the war work and policy, and that other body of administration and policy which has to do with both home and war work in the way of support, amalgamation, and co-operation; and I want to briefly draw attention to what has been done under these three headings. The first article of the platform upon which the Government went to the people in 1917 was: A vigorous prosecution of the war. What fault has my hon. friend to find with the Government in that respect? Did it lack courage, or initiative, or efficiency, or loyalty, deep and abiding, to the men whom it sent overseas? Did it suffer those men to go into the

war unequipped? Did it give them insufficient food, or equipment, or clothing, or medical care? Were those men nursed when they were sick, were their wounds cared for when they were struck down? Is the Government at fault in any of these respects? Wh'en there were influences abroad in various parts of this country to endeavour to cause the Government to ease up with respect to its war measures, to go no further and to refrain from the last ir-revokable step which was necessary if the ranks of our men were to be kept up, the Government displayed the courage of its convictions. Its members took their political lives in their hands. They went to the country. They pledged themselves to that policy which the situation called for and they have carried it out ever since. You ask for proof. Talk with our generals that have lived and fought upon the battlefield. If you ask for further proof talk with the generals of the Allied Army who have seen our men fighting and toiling on the battle grounds. Talk with those who have had charge of the great helping institutions of the war-the nurses, the Red Cross Society, the Ambulance and First Aid organizations, all those activities which go to solace and comfort and healing of soldiers. Ask these authorities whether Canada was to the front or to the rear in all of these respects? I say that no further words are required to prove that the Government has fulfilled its pledge in regard to the war and fulfilled it most efficiently.
The second article in our platform was Civil Service reform; the extension of the Civil Service Act to the Outside Service, with the abolition of patronage, and a preference for returned men in making appointments. That pledge has also been fulfilled to the letter. A National Government has existed in this country since 1867 and the Civil Service has been a subject of debate and examination during all the intervening years. No Government up to the time of the present one has been either willing or strong enough to take hold of the Civil Service and to establish it on the basis of merit rather than on the basis of party patronage. This Government did that. It has passed legislation classifying the Civil Service and has entirely eliminated the power of patronage-has made merit the foundation for appointment, has made efficient work the foundation for promotion. Is the Government to be found fault with in respect to that far-reaching measure of reform?	[DOT]
In respect to a preference in the matter of appointment of returned soldiers, up to the present date 24,000 returned soldiers have been appointed to the Civil Service, of whom 7,500 have been made permanent. In that respect the Government has shown itself strong, and persistent, and faithful to th- promise it made.
For many years in this country there has been a growing feeling that the Dominion should have a Health Department. We started out with an Immigration Department to bring immigrants to this country, while all the time death was taking its toll of the young from month to month and from year to year. The finest way to build up the population of any country is to care for the births that take place in it, and to preserve and cause the young life to grow up in a native constitutional atmosphere into good citizenship. What waste there has been in this respect in the past medical men and publicists can very well tell. Well, Sir, this Government has established a Health Department, and has added to it a Child Welfare Bureau, and has followed that up with a Housing Scheme under which $25,000,000 is advanced by the Government, in co-operation with the provincial authorities, for better housing in this Dominion. Better housing means better homes and better health conditions-longer life, and more life in the homes of the country.
Technical education has been alluded to by my hon. friend (Mr. Cronyn) who moved the Address. In organization measures with respect to technical education this Government has taken the first step. A sum of $10,000,000 has been appropriated to the purpose. Contracts have already been entered into and are being made with the provincial authorities to put into operation the work of technical education. That is a great step forward. Who denies that in this country there are great hidden forces lying right by our hands of which we are oblivious, but which gentlemen of keen research will spy out and (bring to the light, .and which the skilled hand of the technically trained man will set into the work of development and progress? These hidden powers are tremendous in a country like Canada, and with resources such as we have these are vitally heoessary ito the full jprospeTity and development of the country.
So along with technical education we have the Industrial a*nd Scientific. Research Council, a body of honorary members comprising amongst them the best of our scientific men in ability, in training and

Now, coming to the after phases of the war, has my hon. friend anything to find fault with in the matter of the demobilization of the forces of this country? When the armistice was signed, some 340,000 Canadians were on the other side of the Atlantic. During part of the time of their demobilization I happened to be in Europe and I saw what went on with reference to our soldiers as well as with reference to the soldiers of other countries. I am entirely of the opinion that no country in the world more expeditiously, more efficiently and more smoothly demobilized its soldiers than did Canada. More than 20,000 soldiers' dependents have been repatriated at the. country's expense.
We have financed our part in the war, paying out $1,600,000,000 in that account. Two billions of dollars were raised through loans subscribed by the Canadian people themselves, or about $270 per capita.
My hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) was denouncing the Government, saying that it did not have the sympathy and confidence of the people. I wonder how it wais- that the people of Canada, the hard-headed business men of Canada, raised two billions of dollars for this Government and entrusted it with its expenditure if they had as bad an opinion of it as my hon. friend says they have. Not only have we done that, but we have enlarged the area of taxation as no other government has done before, on the basis of business profits, of income and of other war taxation. We have extended credits, and these credits have enabled the selling of our own produce. A courageous, sb'me say a foolhardy adventure, hut to my mind, under the circumstances, absolutely necessary, and I believe it has had and will have the very best of results.
I might speak now and lastly of whalt has been done for the soldiers after demobilization, in the way of vocational and other training, in the way of medical and hospital care, in the way of appliances, orthopedic and otherwise, for soldiers that have been maimed, in the land settlement arrangement under which hundreds and thousands of returned soldiers are making their application, undergoing their training and being settled down into the production on the soil, one of the finest of productions that we have in this country. I might speak to you-and it would be a revelation to any one who had not read it-of the reestablishment work in this country, of its far-reaching effects, of the numbers that come under its tutelage, its training and its

care. Suffice it to say that already the Land Settlement Board which selects men returned and trains with pay and allowances, advises in choice of lands, stock and implements, and loans the necessary funds, has already qualified 34,000 for settlement and advanced $56,000,000 in loans.
As regards Soldiers' Civil Ke-establish-ment, let the following facts sink into our minds and make their proper impression: 104 hospitals and sanitoria are being directly and indirectly operated. 6.520 In and 1,634 Out patients are therein on strength of department. 8,993 average outside clinics have been operated per week in December, 1919. 27,602 were on strength of department for vocational. training December 31, 1919, and of these 20,107 were disabled and 7,495 under 18 years. 3.988 are training in curative workshops. 12,327 were training in Schools Department and outside during the last week of December. 11,223 training in industries. 114,728 net applications have been received by Information and Service Boards to December 27, 1919.	106,061 have
been placed in employment-92% of total. 3,496 applications and 2,717 placements in professional and business sections have been made. 762,.322 inquiries have been dealt with in Information and Service Branch. 7,000 tuberculosis cases have been treated and 75% enabled to resume useful occupations. 42,679 re-training courses have been granted, of whom 23,966 are in training, 9,456 courses have been completed and 3,096 discontinued.
Canada's record in this great work stands away over and above that of any country that participated in the war and in it. She has spent so far about an even $40,000,000.
1 rest my case. I have thought it wise to put i&ome of these general observations before the House and the counltry, not because I feel that this Government has not made errors and mistakes. It has made many of them; what Government has not? But I do think that it is in the interest of fair, honest playing of the gaime thait^what has been done should not be hidden under misrepresentation or clouds of false criticism, but should go to the people for their calm examination. And if that is done, I for one feel that I can entrust my stewardship that of the Government to the judgment of my fellow citizens in this Dominion of Canada.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Gape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, possibly at this hour and after having heard a number of excellent speeches this afternoon and to-night, the Government would hot con-

sider it amiss to adjourn and take up this debate to-morrow afternoon. It is now almost ten o'clock, and we have heard a very elaborate speech from the leader of the Government, and I think it would be hardly fair to ask an amateur like myself to reply to it at this late hour. I would, therefore, be obliged if the leader of the Government would agree to an adjournment and let us take up this debate to-morrow afternoon.


George Green Foster: Taking into, consideration the extreme youth and inexperience of my hon. friend, I am touched by his appeal, and I shall be pleased to agree to his moving the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. McKENZIE moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. F. Tolmie, Member of the Electoral District of Victoria City, B.C., and Minister of Agriculture, introduced by Sir George E. Foster and Sir Henry Drayton.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 9.48 p.m.
Tuesday, March 2, 1920.